India "forced a revamp" of the Int'l Cricket Council by "threatening the world body with forming a breakaway faction," according to the AP. Board of Control for Cricket in India Secretary Sanjay Patel said, “We were criticised and a lot of them did not agree but we told them that if India did not get its due and importance, we might be forced to form a second ICC.” The revamp of the ICC "gives greater power and a greater share of revenues to India, England and Australia." Patel said, "England and Australia agreed and after that it was decided that from June 27 onwards the new structure will come into place. I would like to state that all 10 full members have signed the resolution” (AP, 6/8). In Sydney, Peter Lalor reported India "had apparently threatened to withdraw from the World Cup, Champions Trophy and other ICC events." Cricket Australia Chair Wally Edwards "was a key player in the negotiations with India and was criticised for his role." He "has defended the move to allow the three countries to gain greater control of the ICC by claiming that the former governance structure was not working." Edwards: “Debate was non-existent really -- what I could call normal debate about subjects. There was a very unhappy India in the room, very unhappy with pretty well everything that was happening, and it was very disheartening." Patel said that the Indians "had used an outside firm to study how much revenue they contribute to world cricket" (THE AUSTRALIAN, 6/9). The PTI reported there "was also no stopping" suspended BCCI President N. Srinivasan from taking over as the first chairman of the ICC later this month in Melbourne as the Supreme Court "has not prevented him from doing so." Patel: "By the month end, India will take a leading role in the ICC. Mr Srinivasan is going. There is no Supreme Court bar on him. Both of us are going to Melbourne" (PTI, 6/7). In Melbourne, Chloe Saltau wrote Srinivasan's push to become ICC chairman is "the burning issue ahead of the governing body's annual conference," to be held at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on June 23. Squeamishness about his candidacy "has intensified since he was suspended by the Indian Supreme Court, which said he was one of 13 people named in a damning report into corruption allegations" in the Indian Premier League. The faint chance that the BCCI might present an alternative candidate "appeared to evaporate when Patel confirmed Srinivasan would come to Melbourne" (THE AGE, 6/8).

BCCI SPLIT ON BILL: In Mumbai, Vijay Tagore reported the BCCI finance committee, which met in New Delhi on Wednesday, "was divided over sanctioning a small claim" of Sunil Gavaskar, the Supreme Court-appointed interim president of the BCCI/IPL. It "required the intervention" of interim BCCI President Shivlal Yadav "to finally clear it." For a board whose worth runs into billions of dollars, $12,000 "should be pocket change but its members made a mountain out of a molehill of a claim." Gavaskar submitted a bill of $12,000 "for his expenditure during the UAE leg of the IPL and it did not amuse too many BCCI members." The matter "was put up before the finance committee and the members wanted it rejected outright." It was contended that since the interim IPL president was entitled for a fee, as suggested by the apex court, the claim "should not be sanctioned." However, Yadav "vetoed the opposition." He "warned the members of the possible consequences, given that the claim has come from a person appointed by the apex court of the country" (MUMBAI MIRROR, 6/6).